Therapeutic Touch Is Not Therapeutic for Procedural Pain in Very Preterm Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preterm neonates below 30 weeks' gestational age undergo numerous painful procedures. Many management approaches are not appropriate for this population. Therapeutic Touch, an alternative approach based on the theory of energy medicine, has been shown to promote physiological stability in preterm neonates and reduce pain in some adult studies. The objective was to determine whether Therapeutic Touch is efficacious in decreasing pain in preterm neonates. METHODS: Infants < 30 weeks' gestational age participated in a randomized control trial in 2 level III neonatal intensive care units. All evaluations, analyses, and heel lance procedure were conducted with only the therapist knowing the group assignment. Immediately before and after the heel lance procedure, the therapist performed nontactile Therapeutic Touch (n = 27) with infant behind curtains, leaving the curtained area for the heel lance, performed by another. In the sham condition (n = 28), the therapist stood by the incubator with hands by her side. The Premature Infant Pain Profile was used for pain response and time for heart rate to return to baseline for recovery. Heart rate variability and stress response were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There were no group differences in any of the outcomes. Mean Premature Infant Pain Profile scores across 2 minutes of heel lance procedure in 30-second blocks ranged from 7.92 to 8.98 in the Therapeutic Touch group and 7.64 to 8.46 in the sham group. INTERPRETATION: Therapeutic Touch given immediately before and after heel lance has no comforting effect in preterm neonates. Other effective strategies involving actual touch should be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".